15 ms·
FAA seeks public input on drone operations
- scrum-treats 3y agoNo thank you. We don't want air pollution and surveillance disguised as "delivery drones."
- tjmc 3y agoAir pollution? You do realise most drones are electric right?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- echelon 3y agoI'm looking forward to it. It feels like we're living in the Jetsons. Finally.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoAll that's missing is EVs and drones making a mandatory, Doppler-influenced, uniform burble sound as the motors run. Sort of like the somewhat-mandated "shutter click" sound for digital cameras.
- mynameisvlad 3y agoEVs generally do, at low speeds. I believe it’s legally mandated in the US as of a few years ago.
- S201 3y agoSorry to burst your bubble, but the ship on autonomous aerial surveillance has long since sailed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office#Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office... > In 2012 the agency donated two space telescopes to NASA. Despite being stored unused, the instruments are superior to the Hubble Space Telescope. One journalist observed, "If telescopes of this caliber are languishing on shelves, imagine what they're actually using."
- pfych 3y agoAfter watching Mark Rober's video on Zipline[^1] it'll be really cool to see how their technology works in the US. Hopefully the FAA can approve their operations. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOWDNBu9DkU
- chaxor 3y agoThat's very nice and I would like to see it really take off. Do they use the new toroidal propellers for better efficiency and lower noise?
- etrautmann 3y agoWasn’t this only true for water and the air prop versions haven’t been commercialized (or successfully developed) yet?
- sgtnoodle 3y agoThanks for the shout-out. I've been at Zipline for 7 years and have been working on the new platform for a while. Mark Rober did an amazing job showing off what we've been up to. I agree it will be really cool to see it in operation alongside our longer range vehicle.
- jcims 3y agoThat video inspired me to get off my ass and start looking for companies to work for who have a mission I'm in love with. It's tough because my specialization (infosec) is mostly valued in industries I don't give a shit about, but a reduction in income to get an increase in satisfaction that I'm supporting something I'm wholly in love with is worth it.
- sgtnoodle 3y agoHow about Zipline? :-) https://legacy.flyzipline.com/job?gh_jid=5488460003 https://legacy.flyzipline.com/job?gh_jid=5488460003
- prawn 3y agoThe page content is short enough to include here: "The FAA is seeking public input on four requests to conduct beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone operations at or below 400 feet. If granted, Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, Zipline, and UPS Flight Forward will continue to expand the envelope of FAA-approved BVLOS drone operations. Data collected from these operations will inform the FAA’s ongoing policy and rulemaking activities." Zipline: autonomous delivery UPS Flight Forward: drone delivery uAvionix: looks like BVLOS tech? Phoenix Air Unmanned: "aerial data acquisition services" Around 400' (120m) is the general legal altitude limit for consumer drone use in many countries.
- wrath224 3y agoA lot of this makes sense if you add some smart regulation. Drones over a certain weight class should be transmitting ADSB out if they plan to fly outside line of sight. ADSB in could be optional. If your drone is flying outside line of sight, it's most likely large enough and big enough to be able to transmit. Everyone benefits from that sort of case from pilots to drone operators. Will be interesting to see for sure.
- nradov 3y agoSure, ADS-B can help. But as of today, there are still some light and ultralight crewed aircraft flying around without ADS-B in certain classes of airspace or altitude ranges.
- two_in_one 3y agowell, it's absolutely logical that ADSB should be installed on 300 gr drones. because everybody wants to know where they are. also another one on pilot. because he may be alone and still have something to share... I'm thinking about getting a gun, just in case..
- genmud 3y agoI think a sensible approach would be to allow these larger/automated drones only in class C, or extend the adsb mandate to ultralights. Alternatively, maybe it's time to push them to have a lighter, non certified version of ADSB for light aircraft/drones and mandate a price requirement for a mobile transponder/receiver under 1k. If apple can sell an AirTag for $20, there isn't any reason we couldn't get the prices of longer range beacons down.
- vdqtp3 3y ago> there isn't any reason we couldn't get the prices of longer range beacons down. The electronics aren't why the beacons are expensive, it's the regulations. Your proposal is to add more?
- contingencies 3y ago
- theflyingelvis 3y agoIt’s interesting that a large number of the comments are formulaic in nature and state how dangerous the drones could be to the operation of hot air balloons. As a fixed wing pilot for almost 30 years it seems to me that the real danger is with hot air balloons and their inability to safely maneuver and control their direction within the airspace and not the operation of ‘drones’ or UAV’s. I realize that my opinion is probably not going to be popular but it’s just my opinion.
- hardcopy 3y agoHot air balloons are easy to see, and one of the very first forms of aviation. They’re also hard to maneuver. Drones are incredibly difficult to see and last I checked FAA was proposing right of way and the burden of detect and avoid (and blame, if collision) on the balloonist. Basically anyone without adsb. And fixed wing pilots love to forget the entire forms of aviation exist outside part 91. I’m a paramotor pilot and my entire flights are under 400 AGL around populated areas, and this also affects me. I think it’s pretty fucked up for drones to have right of way over any manned flight. I think there are ways to bring forward innovation with drones without this strange proposal that essentially shifts liability away from large corporations. Some old info on this: https://usppa.org/faa/bvlos/ https://usppa.org/faa/bvlos/
- theflyingelvis 3y agoIt’s the very inability of the hot air balloons to maneuver that makes them unsafe. There are countless balloon accidents where the craft are dragged along the ground, blown into power lines and other obstructions because the pilots have no real control of the flight path (other than limited control of altitude). So, again, it’s my opinion that balloons are the real danger, not UAV’s.
- looping__lui 3y agoNo fixed wing pilot I know would ever state and claim that hot air balloons are a risk. Claiming that “balloons are a risk, not UAVs” is almost so bizarre that I mentally flag your posts as trolling. Giving UAVs the right of way is bogus and will cost many human lives in General Aviation. There are already countless accidents reported with UAVs nearly taking down planes. They are impossible to see. Edit: Your comment almost sounds like out of some bad communication workbook for lobbyists from the 70s - “pedestrians are the real danger on the street, cars are safe. Jay walking needs to be punished severely” ; “Public transportation is a communist idea threatening the very ideals of our society - every person should instead buy his OWN car”. Man, Balloons are the neatest and most harmless most easy to avoid objects in the sky. Don’t try to make them look bad. Everyone loves em.
- Animats 3y agoI suspect we will see more restrictions on drones because of the threat level. Ukraine and Russia are in a war of drones. Ukraine is using up about 10,000 drones a month. Someone is attacking Moscow with drones. Unclear if it's Ukraine or some internal anti-Putin movement. Anything beyond line of sight or over 400ft anywhere near controlled airspace probably needs to have ADSB to avoid being targeted by air or drone defenses. Even balloons. ADSB is now down to 26 grams.[1] Still priced over $2000, but expect that to come down. [1] https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ https://uavionix.com/products/ping2020/
- KMnO4 3y agoIf I want to use drones to send explosives over a border, you can be sure I’m not going to care about what the FAA wants.
- z3phyr 3y agoHow easy is it to form and operate your own airforce with a fleet of fast fixed wing UAVs, rotorcrafts and balloons with surveillance sensors and maybe rudemtry arms (model rockets with limited guiding, small arms..)? Are there airforce based mercenaries who charge for intelligence and others ops and provide service to field armies and other mercs?
- m463 3y agoI was wondering if this was asking for more regulation or less regulation. Sight unseen I suspected more regulation. but if it is less restrictions on what can be done, I'm all for it.
- cpgxiii 3y agoThe problem with a lot of drone regulation enacted and proposed so far in the US is that it effectively enables drone-using companies at the cost of other airspace users. To me it seems like the overall solutions have been pretty obvious - for drones capable of operating in IFR-only controlled airspace, the story is clear (transponder, ADS-B, follow filed flight plan and ATC instructions). For drones operating at lower altitudes in "see and avoid" VFR conditions, drones must be capable of seeing and avoiding traffic (there are some vendors in this space already). Giving commercial drone operators right of way just to make their development simpler is not the answer. More troubling to me personally, the FAA is once again proposing rules that clearly encroach on private airspace rights. There is clear precedent from US v Causby that the government obviously does not control airspace all the way down to the ground, yet the FAA continues to propose and enact rules that would give it authority to prohibit personal use of the near airspace while providing it to commercial users. E.g. the position that the FAA can regulate your own drone flown over your own property below 400 feet, while enabling companies to do so, represents a serious encroachment on property rights.
- jakear 3y agoThe logical conclusion being that it is your moral responsibility to get out your shotgun and forcibly enforce your property rights. Barring that they’ll encroach further and further.
- dbt00 3y agoThat is literally a federal crime in the USA. I do not recommend it at all.
- jakear 3y agoThe courts decide what constitutes a crime after both sides’ legal arguments are presented — not random people on the internet before. Many jurisdictions allow armed defense of one’s private property against even human trespassers. Do you think corporate drones flying over your head taking videos of you in your own private back yard deserve more rights?
- contingencies 3y agoSo the current situation globally seems to be that the US has established itself as a broadly optimistic environment for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) commercial drone deregulation since the FAA BVLOS ARC report https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS_BVLOS_ARC_FINAL_REPORT_03102022.pdf https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committe... was released in March 2022. Many European, Israeli and other foreign drone companies are moving to the US to prove their concepts in this buoyant market. The individual approvals granted to specific operators to date seem to have allowed limited testing while maintaining controls and oversight. The general plan seems to be to enforce RemoteID (local broadcast of UAV ID, mission, ground station location, etc.) https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&eodoc=true&documentID=7280 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&..., UAV and proposed flight path pre-registration with the local regulator plus a "well clear" avoidance zone around other UAVs. Once this is seen to work, commercial operations at scale can begin. There is an IETF DRIP standard being proposed allowing the develop of generic avionics to effect similar methods globally. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-arch/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-arch/ https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html After trawling through 100s of "me balloon, you drone, balloon no like drone" comments, some of the 'better' articulated comments are https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0061/attachment_1.pdf https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0061/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0011 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0011 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0014 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0014 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0022 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0022 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0006 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0006 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0018 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0018 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0015 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0015 https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0036/attachment_1.pdf https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0036/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0005 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0005
- graderjs 3y agoThis thread was awesome. From the informative takes about legal issues of drones to the comments on finding work you care about. A rewarding read.
- LatteLazy 3y agoWhatever it takes to get drone based delivery, let's just do that. I don't see why it is so difficult to permit anyone to fly drones below 500m, over public roads, following the direction of traffic, below a certain weight and noise output.
- reustle 3y agoThat had not crossed my mind before with these delivery drones. Are they really intending to stay over public roads primarily, instead of a straight line from the launch site to the destination?
- LatteLazy 3y agoI'd prefer straight line, but from a navigation / right of access point of view just using the space above public roads is likely the easy starting point. Then we can expand to just do direct flight BUT let people ban flight over land they control (vital for airports etc, important to busy bodies who have nothing better to do).